Free Republic

Glad to see you now admit the money isn’t the issue.

Go back to basic reading comprehension on post 5:

“I asked a guy once; What does it say about priorities when people are willing to pay a mechanic two to three times per hour to work on a car, what they are willing to pay a teacher to teach a classroom full of children?”

The statement was about priorities. Sure, you, and so many others, immediately jumped to the, "teachers are ALL overpaid, underworked, parasitic union sycophants," theme. And I continued to point out that if people wanted to have really great teachers, they could spend more and make it worthwhile for really great people to teach.

But I'm kind of at a loss for where I said -- directly, and not in your or others' stretch of what I said -- "You all need to pay teachers more."

I've always said reading comprension needed more work.

** yawn **

Yeah, whatever.

Didn't advocate violence -- wipe off your screen.

. . . the parent does not give up the right and responsibility of the position just because their child walks into the school building. . . .

And that is the main gist of the article -- if parents would accept that they should be a dynamic part of their child's education, most teachers would be considerably happier. Sure, there would be a few that would leave (which would probably be a good thing). But in general, most good teachers welcome parents in the classrooms.

And yet, you still pay taxes to that government, to enable them to do their dastardly work.

What would Thoreau say?

Sorry. There is no way to funnel money in public schools to good teachers. ALL teachers get paid roughly the same. Good ones and awful ones - same pay.

That is part of the problem, and one I wish could get fixed.

The problem isn’t parents, teachers or kids. It is government, forced monopoly and unions. Privatize all schools. You won’t find salaries going up, but you will find most teachers will be happier.

Totally on board with that idea. Allow education to run on the business model, so successful schools become in demand and unsuccessful schools get shuttered, successful teachers get rewarded appropriately, and failures get kicked to the curb.

Of course, then it enters the same arena as health care -- can the government require people to purchase a service?

The only way it could work would be to take government off the hook for people's failure to ensure their children are educated. Since for certain, if government didn't take the money for education in taxes and only mandated that people invest in kids' education, then the kids would come in second place to that new car, in many people's priorities.

As I pointed out in another post -- I know people who teach, not because of the pay, since they are financially comfortable otherwise, but out of choosing to serve their community where they see a need. Jealous of mechanics? I'd have to ask them, but I don't think they are. In a couple of dozen years the car will have been recycled, while the kids my friends teach will be parents themselves.

Back to the BLS -- the median annualized wage for college graduates is $57,200, compared to the $49k-$51K overall you cite for teachers (man, I know a lot of people who'd like to know where the $49k teachers' salaries are -- they sure aren't around here. Most of the teachers I know are taking home $40k/year, which comes out to $22/hour just for school hours, but more like $19-$20/hour for time actually spent.

Re the salaries of mechs vs. teachers -- when it becomes necessary for mechs to get a college education, your car repairs will get a lot pricier. And if you can find a garage that only charges you for the mech's time -- good luck.

Sorry to throw context into the discussion -- I know it can be inconvenient to compare apples to apples, but one gets a clearer picture that way.

By way of clearer picture, since you want to cite BLS, according to them, a nurse's annual salary was $62k in 2008. That comes out to $31/hour. But you say your wife only makes $27? Maybe the numbers aren't the be-all, end-all you want them to be. Especially when comparing numbers from different sources (BLS vs AFT). My apologies for injecting numbers into a discussion about teachers. Very few teachers understand them.

No apologies necessary. I was happy to help you understand them in context. And most of the teacher's I know have learned to overlook children's little insults.

You're trying to put words in my mouth that I didn't say.

I don't equate money=results. I equate paying a fair price for fair value. If people want to farm their kids to the lowest cost worker, then they deserve what they get. If they want to demand quality, then expect to pay a fair price.

Parents aren't the total problem. Neither are teachers. Neither are the kids. But being prior military, I'm sure you're familiar with the 80/20 rule.

Sorry you failed as a teacher -- I think you could have been a good one if you had stuck it out.

You're the one who said teachers were making a ton.

There are teachers I know who, if they weren't already financially comfortable, wouldn't be teaching. So no -- they're not in it for the money.

And they have been recruited by private schools -- but stay with public education out of seeing a need.

I'm with you -- pay teachers what it takes to fill the positions -- with talent, not someone who just keeps the seat warm and hands out worksheets.

Your comment is like saying, "Just pay mechanics enough to find someone who knows which end of the wrench to pick up."

You will pay for what you value, and value what you pay for.

Don’t know where you live, but there aren’t any wealthy teachers running around here, except the ones who left a good career to teach. In fact, I see mechs here better off than teachers, unless the teacher has a spouse with a good job.

You make some valid points, and some with which I agree. On others, however, I disagree.

What some teachers did in Wisconsin is, in my eyes, reprehensible and a disservice to their profession. So when you take exception to all teachers because of what those few are doing, you really aren't being very fair.

Yes, some teachers will intentionally stretch the truth to 'get at' a student. But by and large, the ones I know don't. What I find curious is the number of parents who take the child's word that of not one, but five teachers. Do parents really think teachers have so little else to do but conspire about their child?

I wish I had the answers. I know a good friend who left teaching because of three P's -- Parents, Peckerheads, and Policies. Something needs to change, for the sake of our children, and for the sake of our nation.

Stuff it.

Nice. Great to engage in mature exchange of views and civil discourse with an adult.

I’m paying $5000 each year in property taxes, virtually all of which goes to the schools - who beg for more.

$5000 in prop. taxes means little unless you also provide the value you are paying taxes on. And "virtually all of which goes to the schools" is really not true in any community.

Teachers are well paid for what they do.

In some areas, I'd agree. In most areas, teachers who have any decent standard of living are not the primary income for their family. If it's so lucrative and so easy -- why aren't you doing it?

Hmmm...if the mechanic told me it would take him 12 years to fix my car, and that there was a good chance it still wouldn’t run right, I wouldn’t pay HIM much either!

If your car was something you expected to last 80 years, you'd put money into getting it done right.

It's a self-fulfilling cycle -- keep pay low, many good people won't stay, but people who aren't so good will.

The ones who aren't so good get the attention, so that is used as justification for low pay.

So many of the really good ones don't stay.

So that becomes justification for keeping the pay low.

It isn't the trite, "If it took a mechanic 12 years to fix a car non sequitor you toss that's the issue.

It's more the "me" syndrome and the need for immediate gratification.

Spend money on your car -- it makes you feel good now.

Spend money on your kid's education -- it takes longer and is something you have to put some effort of your own into.

I asked a guy once; What does it say about priorities when people are willing to pay a mechanic two to three times per hour to work on a car, what they are willing to pay a teacher to teach a classroom full of children?

The response was that the mechanic is a professional who has to study and work to stay current with new automotive technology.

It all depends on how the question was framed. "Sexual indiscretion" can mean different things, depending on the level of expectation people have for powerful men to have affairs.

I expect France was way down the list on tolerating indiscretions because they expect an affair, but not juvenile mismanagement of it.

Fourteen months ago, the president was using his soporific voice with the odd clipped cadences, awkwardly placed and inappropriate inflections punctuated by strange whistling noises that no-one in the US has previously heard to prattle on about...

You forgot to mention his little pinchey-finger, "Listen while I dumb my exquisite intelligence down to the level of you morons," gesture.

My favorite part was when 0 made the comment about his demand not being, "political posturing."

It seemed there was a bit of widespread laughing that had 0 put on his mean face.

Based on bi-partisan ideas;

Yeah -- 0's bi AND he's partisan.

It is fully paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes and asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share; and

Except, of course, for those who donate generously to DNC and 0 for 2012. THOSE loopholes will be there, just harder for the average Joe to find.

Ask away -- let me know how that works.

It will have an impact on job and economic growth NOW — just as soon as Congress acts.

An impact NOW? Uh-oh, what's that flushy/swirly sound? And of course, pre-loading a whiney "congress's fault" finger-point.

Every day, people in this country are working hard to meet their responsibilities.Except, of course, when THEY GO GOLFING OR ON VACAY The question now is whether Washington will meet theirs.

Again -- strawman, red herring, non-sequitor, whiney-butt poutey boy stuff.

The time for obstruction and gridlock is over. Congress the president needs to put country ahead of politics. (There, fixed it.)

The American people know that the economic crisis and the deep recession weren’t created overnight (no, it took 0 over two and a half years to bury the U.S. economy this deep) and won’t be solved overnight.

Or at all, if 0 has any hand in the "solution".

The economic security of the American middle class has been under attack for decades.

Thanks to community organizers and the mentality that the U.S. somehow owes non-productive people and illegal immigrants some kind of "entitlement" for not pulling their load.

That’s why President Obama believes we need to do more than just recover from this economic mess.

Yes -- we need to recover from the political mess by putting representatives in office who look out for the U.S., not themselves. 0 -- it's time to pack.

The President is rebuilding the economy the American way (like he knows anything about being American)

Oh good grief is right.

Milking the captive consumer to funnel government taxpayer dollars to an industry which has failed by any market standards other than those embraced by a corrupt and rotting government.

The only other thing to make this stink even more is to tie in a union connection.

Oh wait -- that's already there.

At some point, the dumba$$ needs to understand the economy is like a car tire (on the one he drove off the cliff) . . .

When a tire's leaking, it's going to go flat unless you patch the holes.

Taking the air out to fill his wittle party bawoons WON'T HELP.

Whipping the few who are still pumping air -- WON'T HELP.

MAKING MORE AND BIGGER HOLES -- WON'T HELP!

In the end, the tire will still be flat, unless you PATCH THE D@MNED HOLES!

Nice.

Has 0 ever put anything before himself?

It ain't the tax.

It's the application of the taxes, what the government does with them.

High taxes to fund specific tangible benefits -- most people would accept.

High taxes because of emergent circumstances -- a war forced on the U.S., or a catastrophe needing nation response -- okay. High taxes equitably applied -- and not a backdoor cop-out for a supporter or campaign contributor -- not really great, but okay.

High taxes because the government has funded treadmills for shrimp and aponsored multi-generational, absent-father baby mills -- stop right there.

High taxes because the government has tried to manipulate the economy, wrecked it, and wants to bail out financial supporters and the unions -- unreal.

High taxes because an international money manipulator needs the U.S. dollar to take a dive to rake in a few billions -- whoa.

High taxes because our annointed leaders (< /sarc>) want to buy votes through "entitlements" and breaks -- time for a new government.